If your boss writes you a notice listing allegations by another employee and indicates that it doesn’t need to reported on the eQIP, should you indicate No for received discipline or warning?
I would sit with the boss and ask if it is a formal record of discipline. An allegation is just that. If you signed nothing and nothing is in the HR folder…you were not disciplined. I will say I am amazed how many employees sign discipline letters, it goes in the HR folder and they deny having one to the investigator who finds it on review and then they question the candor of the person.
Read the question as is and report what’s being asked.
Thanks for the response! He had me sign a notice and gave me a copy. He said it’s not going to be a part of the HR record or anything like that and therefore need not be reported on the eQIP. He and I would be the only two people who would have a copy. It’s more of an acknowledgement that I’ve been notified of the allegations.
I had similar “warning” letter. I even had a letter of reprimand, which I successfully filed a grievance. Both letters were destroyed and they were never in my personnel file; nonetheless, I listed them anyway because the question specifically asked for that. I wasn’t asked to provide the copies even when I have them ready.
My philosophy is that… is there’s a paper trial and something requires my acknowledgment, then it shall be listed. I’ll let the adjudicator decides on that. I’m not going to play legalese with that. Also, by revealing the information that they would not or may not have discovered will speak for your character and integrity, which is almost always an affirmative/positive “thing”.
Highly recommend telling the investigator. Those things have a habit of showing up in HR folders even though there are no other copies. If it is merely an allegation…it is meaningless. If they do not close the loop investigating it…
Almost daily, I end up saying to someone after they continue to deny any reportable information,
“Well, during the course of the investigation, information was developed that…”
All, what if you discover something after the interview, then notify your FSO and ask them to send it to the investigator and they don’t do it? What if you asked twice??
So, answering NO on the form, but bringing it up during the interview would be okay, right?
The interview is the last chance you have to come clean.
Again, hearing the Investigator say, “No?, Well during the course of the investigation…” is not a good thing.
When you say, “No?, Well during the course of the investigation…”, that only applies if the investigator is the one to find out the facts first and then brings up the derogatory information, right? If the applicant brings it up first, even after answering NO, how would that be taken?
I’m currently waiting on my T5; I had to meet my BI a second time due to a former supervisor simply mentioning that he verbally advised me of another employee’s complaint. There was no policy/ rule violation whatsoever, and the supervisor thought he was speaking ‘positive’ about me by telling the BI that the other employee’ complaint was the only issue… Review sent the case back for the BI to meet me for clarification.
Needless to say, that was a month wasted in my process.
Don’t leave anything out!
If you bring up the information - you might hear “during the course of the investigation…” for missing details or information that didn’t match up with the information you provided.
The Personal Conduct guideline requires the Investigator to give you the opportunity to volunteer the information first - and when you do, the investigation reflects you volunteered.
When you don, the report reflects you had to be confronted with the information.
What do you mean give you the opportunity to volunteer the information first?
Does this mean that after the personal interview, if the investigator finds a discrepancy between what was listed on the SF-86 as the “reason for leaving” and what the employee records reflect, that there will still be a chance to explain what could have caused the discrepancy?
Reason being, I was told one reason by my supervisor (performance issues, not misconduct) but suspect that employee records may not mirror that reason. I was unable to get a copy of of my employee records do to company policy, which I found strange. I made note of this in the SF-86 comments section and was hoping that if the investigator found a discrepancy that they would ask me about it before blindly just filing it as “lack of candor.”
Volunteering means, during the Subject interview you volunteer the information that may be derogatory or that should have been reported when you are asked about any additional information or changes you want to make. .
If you didn’t know about the issue after the confrontation - you didn’t know. The normal response is “I didn’t think you would find out/had to report/was severe enough to be reported”.
If you were aware of any issue - report it. You are ahead of the game if you report the performance issues (or any other issues) and there is no record, than vice versa. My experience is the vice versa when i talk to the supervisor(s). Verbal warnings/counselings are almost always reported to HR in a memo for record or on a company form.
There is no “blindly filing any issue”. Be honest and thorough when completing your questionnaire. Be honest and thorough during your interview - this is your chance to give your side of the story to the adjudicator. If an issue is uncovered, despite what is often stated in here, additional sources are attempted to figure out the event/issue.
Thank you for the response.
You seem to be very knowledgeable, i have been offered a position that requires a High Risk Public Trust.
I have several financial issues that are currently being mitigated and a letter of admonishment. Do you think I will be able to get my interim?
Currently hold a MRPT that is out of scope.
Can you give more info on “several financial issues”? Was the admonishment part of the finances? Can you get into a repayment plan on all financial issues? I recommend doing that. If they see issues and the credit score is sub par, they likely will not grant the interim. They need weigh (adjudicate) the severity of the financial issues and the admonishment. Being in a repayment plan is the biggest mitigation on finances.
@nrc2112, I believe that Marko answered your question on that. There is no interim for Public Trust positions.
If you were undergoing background investigation for a position requiring clearance, I think it is pretty safe to say that you will not receive interim with the unaddressed financial issues (if I am not mistaken) in addition to a letter of admonishment.